Sikorsky S-92: From Design to Operations
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Offshore workers are still voicing their concern about the S-92, here's an article in one of the leading financial newspaper in Norway.
http://www.dn.no/forsiden/energi/art...ticle_readmore
http://www.dn.no/forsiden/energi/art...ticle_readmore
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The left screen that looks like WX radar is actually the EGPWS map display, which shows the terrain below in colors according to its relative elevation. The terrain is rotated so that it is always course-up, thus it is easy to "see" in your mind's eye relative to your path. If terrain or obstructions are a potential threat, they are yellow, and if at or above current altitude, they are colored red. This is also true for any towers, rigs or stuff that is on the data base, as well as anything that operations puts on the data base (like temporary cranes, rigs or wires.) As well, if you wander toward a red thing, as you get closer, an aural warning calls out warnings. If you are in a turn, and your turn radius will end up within a red thing, you also get a warning, as will a descent. It is therefore reasonably smart.
All in all, it is pretty scarey, zeebeedee, Helicomparitor and sox6, I too would rather NOT have it and would rather feel comfort in the blankness of the EGPWS-less screens! A Rad Alt bug is MUCH more informative, and AVADS is the absolute BEST! Until it is made absolutely perfect, and shows satellites above, and submarines below the surface,it is not desirable.
All in all, it is pretty scarey, zeebeedee, Helicomparitor and sox6, I too would rather NOT have it and would rather feel comfort in the blankness of the EGPWS-less screens! A Rad Alt bug is MUCH more informative, and AVADS is the absolute BEST! Until it is made absolutely perfect, and shows satellites above, and submarines below the surface,it is not desirable.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: norway
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Norwegian media ...
... to be honest, norwegian media is crap in all levels. If they have somthing to make a story on, they'll blow it up like hell. Why are there no reporting on the numerous MD-81 faults that have occured over the past 20 years ? My bet is that those sikorskys are the volvo of the skies, and the norwegian newspapers are the kids on the street with no knowledge whatsoever. The norwegians who know about hellicopters, very clearly state that they see no danger in flying the sikorsky s92, but that they intend to get rid of faulty error messages.
Yes, and when you descend below 1000 ft it turns to a guage (gage for our American friends) and the numerical readout appears on the PFD.
Thanks; that will learn me! In my defence it was early morning typing dyslexia!
To clarify the point about the map etc:
Note the figures in green and yellow on the left side: they denote the highest and lowest elevation, that isn't sea, visible on the screen, in 100s of feet.
Note also the way that the green and blue bearing pointers merge into the background colours; not so clever!
To clarify the point about the map etc:
Note the figures in green and yellow on the left side: they denote the highest and lowest elevation, that isn't sea, visible on the screen, in 100s of feet.
Note also the way that the green and blue bearing pointers merge into the background colours; not so clever!
My hearty thanks for posting the pix, 212man. You undoubtedly have a panel with some significant situational awareness. The best part is that it is well integrated right there on a screen in front of you - none of the "lets mount the display on some unused real-estate", like the wizards that mount a map GPS on the lower console almost behind the pilots.
Three quick questions:
The symbols on your EGPWS, the circles with the four points and names like ANAS and BUZZ, are they user waypoints, what do they represent, and how have you entered them or control them?
Your active track looks to be a magenta color. If you have a multiple leg flight plan, is only the active leg in magenta or the whole thing? How do you know looking at the screen what leg of the flight plan your FMS is coupled to?
On the radar picture (right screen) the S92 shows an arc display with a single intermediate range ring. Can you get multiple range rings to display at the same time or just the one? I see the EGPWS shows 5 range rings.
Those of us still flying without an HSI are putting these pictures under our pillows and making a wish. Send us another one of an ARA approach if you get a chance.
Malabo
Three quick questions:
The symbols on your EGPWS, the circles with the four points and names like ANAS and BUZZ, are they user waypoints, what do they represent, and how have you entered them or control them?
Your active track looks to be a magenta color. If you have a multiple leg flight plan, is only the active leg in magenta or the whole thing? How do you know looking at the screen what leg of the flight plan your FMS is coupled to?
On the radar picture (right screen) the S92 shows an arc display with a single intermediate range ring. Can you get multiple range rings to display at the same time or just the one? I see the EGPWS shows 5 range rings.
Those of us still flying without an HSI are putting these pictures under our pillows and making a wish. Send us another one of an ARA approach if you get a chance.
Malabo
Malabo (never been there but saw it plenty of times from offshore Eket!)
1. The symbols are 'airports'. They are put there by the FMS regardless of the route. In fact, most of the ones you see are platforms that have been enetered into the company database as 'airports' to achieve just this. You can program the FMS to show what type of waypoints you want it to display: on my previous type that used this FMS it showed VORs. Obviously there is a FW biase to it, but by calling platforms 'airports' I think the outcome is quite successful.
2. Don't even get me started on that one! All legs are magenta, regardless of whether they are active or coupled. The active leg destination waypoint is magenta and the subsequent waypoints are white. Here's a great idea, if anyone's listening: make the active leg a different colour from all other legs, that way you can see at a glance where you are relative to it. Then, make it a different colour depending on whether you are coupled or not. Say blue uncoupled, and green coupled. Hey, then apply that convention through out: e.g. HDG bug "ah, it's green, I must be coupled to HDG" etc etc.
3. No, single middle ring for RADAR, multiple for ND. They both show the same outer range, but each pilot can select different ranges. The ND can also show a full circle; currently showing ARC (in double screen picture, you can see bottom left side of ND has two soft key functions: ARC is white background denoting active, FULL is black background, denoting available).
1. The symbols are 'airports'. They are put there by the FMS regardless of the route. In fact, most of the ones you see are platforms that have been enetered into the company database as 'airports' to achieve just this. You can program the FMS to show what type of waypoints you want it to display: on my previous type that used this FMS it showed VORs. Obviously there is a FW biase to it, but by calling platforms 'airports' I think the outcome is quite successful.
2. Don't even get me started on that one! All legs are magenta, regardless of whether they are active or coupled. The active leg destination waypoint is magenta and the subsequent waypoints are white. Here's a great idea, if anyone's listening: make the active leg a different colour from all other legs, that way you can see at a glance where you are relative to it. Then, make it a different colour depending on whether you are coupled or not. Say blue uncoupled, and green coupled. Hey, then apply that convention through out: e.g. HDG bug "ah, it's green, I must be coupled to HDG" etc etc.
3. No, single middle ring for RADAR, multiple for ND. They both show the same outer range, but each pilot can select different ranges. The ND can also show a full circle; currently showing ARC (in double screen picture, you can see bottom left side of ND has two soft key functions: ARC is white background denoting active, FULL is black background, denoting available).
212 - Thanks for posting that it certainly looks great and gives good situational awareness - of course the normal plotting of the route etc is a good start but the EGPWS display makes it look much better.
Its just such a pity that it bears only a passing resemblance to reality and therefore the situation that you are aware of is the situation that existed some months ago when the database was created, and not the situation right now with that invisible 500' crane barge just in front of you. Its just as well you are at 2000'!
Struggling to put sarcasm aside, I just wanted to point out that this does summarise the problem for me - a very alluring and believable display that unfortunately may have very low integrity. Do you honestly think that someone one day will not trundle on in the soup and fly into that "thing" that should not be there according to Mr Honeywell?
I still owe you a response about EGPWS as an AVAD replacement as you were putting words into my mouth, but to be honest I have been too busy this week with the "day job" and anyway it seems that some others have taken up the torch...
HC
Its just such a pity that it bears only a passing resemblance to reality and therefore the situation that you are aware of is the situation that existed some months ago when the database was created, and not the situation right now with that invisible 500' crane barge just in front of you. Its just as well you are at 2000'!
Struggling to put sarcasm aside, I just wanted to point out that this does summarise the problem for me - a very alluring and believable display that unfortunately may have very low integrity. Do you honestly think that someone one day will not trundle on in the soup and fly into that "thing" that should not be there according to Mr Honeywell?
I still owe you a response about EGPWS as an AVAD replacement as you were putting words into my mouth, but to be honest I have been too busy this week with the "day job" and anyway it seems that some others have taken up the torch...
HC
Well, in my mind the fact that I have an FMS waypoint (BUZZ) with no obstacle in side it tells me that I need to watch out, but I guess others may be less cautious!
HC, I don't think you are giving it enough credit. 212man is maintaining an obstacle (and rig) database as a user waypoint instead of an EGPWS database. By describing the user waypoint as an "airport" when he enters it, it then displays on the map screen. He now has an obstacle database that displays on a map view and can be controlled on his base. It can be updated every night, or even during a flight if he receives updated information while enroute. In reality, most rigs are anchored to the ocean floor and don't move too often, so it is only the few exceptions that need to be addressed on a day-to-day basis. The radar will still work well below 2000' to provide obstacle avoidance of things like aircraft carriers and crane barges that poke up a long ways and are not part of the offshore operations.
Pretty close to reality I'd say. Not even EVS will do what you are looking for. AVAD is supplementary to old aircraft configurations that had nothing. It is an old technology now superceded by EGPWS. Reminds me of the North Sea fascination with keeping the old King 90 GPS units alive because they had invested so much into them.
malabo
Pretty close to reality I'd say. Not even EVS will do what you are looking for. AVAD is supplementary to old aircraft configurations that had nothing. It is an old technology now superceded by EGPWS. Reminds me of the North Sea fascination with keeping the old King 90 GPS units alive because they had invested so much into them.
malabo
Or Trimble 2101s: there's progress for you
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC, do you really fly around willy-nilly in IMC at less than 500'? That's the only way I can think of in which moving rigs could be a problem. I consider moving rigs to be a complete red herring, and not worth the trouble of worrying about. In any case, a mobile drilling rig presents a rather large radar signature, and can easily be seen on the radar display. If you don't fly over an unknown radar target, your danger is certainly minimized. At least over here, we cannot fly an offshore approach without operable weather radar in ground mapping mode, and must avoid all radar targets. I simply don't understand your continued objections to improved technology.
212man, don't knock the Trimbles. That's what I'm still using. Sure it's hard to use, gives no situational awareness, has the worst user interface anyone could ever dream up, but it's still better than the TD711 LORAN I had before it came along.
212man, don't knock the Trimbles. That's what I'm still using. Sure it's hard to use, gives no situational awareness, has the worst user interface anyone could ever dream up, but it's still better than the TD711 LORAN I had before it came along.
Ok! I was actually having a dig at HC's company, who have chosen to instal them in their new fleet of 155s. Quite apart from any other considerations (of which you have listed several) the crews will be screwed when they go for sim training, as the sim has a UNS-1E. I guess this is what they call thread creep.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Over here
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Putting Trimbles in new aircraft??? is right. That piece of crap was obsolete when we installed it, and that was almost as soon as GPS became available for aviation use. Our new aircraft have the UNS FMS and Garmin 500, but I seldom get a chance to fly them.
is right. That piece of crap was obsolete when we installed it, and that was almost as soon as GPS became available for aviation use. Our new aircraft have the UNS FMS and Garmin 500, but I seldom get a chance to fly them.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: @home
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From pics posted TCAS is another very good tool for situational awareness.
Especially when your in a non radar control enviroment, knowing where other aircraft in the vicinity from milesss away
Especially when your in a non radar control enviroment, knowing where other aircraft in the vicinity from milesss away
Gomer - no of course I don't fly around at <500' willy-nilly (isn't that a UK expression?). The point is, what is the purpose of having the EGPWS display offshore? If it is there, it will be looked at and if its looked at - and it does look great - then human nature being what it is people will start to rely on it on that bad day when "Oh dear, the radar has just died but never mind the EGPWS will keep me out of trouble" or whatever.
If its there, there is a presumption that its to be looked at, and it should therefore have some integrity but in fact it has no integrity. If it can be looked but has to be treated as having low integrity then just what does it bring to the offshore party - apart from looking great. But if I want something to look great in the aircraft then an attractive cabin attendant might be better....(just giving NL some ammo as he's hard done-by)
Of course if used entirely correctly, there is no increased hazard but to think this will always be the case is to not understand human nature.
Malabo - yes 212 may be maintaining a rig database in his FMS but that is not really relevant to EGPWS. For example he could be looking at the EGPWS without the FMS overlay, and/or some FMSs don't show all items in the database, only those in the route. If you are saying that the deficiencies of EGPWS are compensated by the FMS database, does that mean that you recommend not having EGPWS unless you can overlay all FMS waypoints onto the same display?
CH274 - now TCAS is another matter entirely. Yes please on that one!
212 - HC's company have chosen to install 2101s in the new 155s because the company they are to be chartered to decided that was all they were prepared to pay for. I seem to have forgotten which company that is - can you remind me?
HC
If its there, there is a presumption that its to be looked at, and it should therefore have some integrity but in fact it has no integrity. If it can be looked but has to be treated as having low integrity then just what does it bring to the offshore party - apart from looking great. But if I want something to look great in the aircraft then an attractive cabin attendant might be better....(just giving NL some ammo as he's hard done-by)
Of course if used entirely correctly, there is no increased hazard but to think this will always be the case is to not understand human nature.
Malabo - yes 212 may be maintaining a rig database in his FMS but that is not really relevant to EGPWS. For example he could be looking at the EGPWS without the FMS overlay, and/or some FMSs don't show all items in the database, only those in the route. If you are saying that the deficiencies of EGPWS are compensated by the FMS database, does that mean that you recommend not having EGPWS unless you can overlay all FMS waypoints onto the same display?
CH274 - now TCAS is another matter entirely. Yes please on that one!
212 - HC's company have chosen to install 2101s in the new 155s because the company they are to be chartered to decided that was all they were prepared to pay for. I seem to have forgotten which company that is - can you remind me?
HC
Last edited by HeliComparator; 15th Nov 2006 at 19:30.